Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 3, 2015 3:30pm-4:01pm PDT

3:30 pm
ine viewers we emphasis and reemphasis the importance of las vegas worth streets to the thousands and thousands of tourists millions of videos to all corners of the globe planning department denied an identical installation on lombardi an port location 8, and e yet alcatraz is photo from the bay this is shocking and disingenuous we can't stress the number of visitors that come to this small area go ahead. >> the deceptively and the planning department have chosen not to protect our tourists epic center despite supervisor
3:31 pm
farrell as a world-class designation our street x plaintiffs implies this we meeting and greeting our san francisco tourists has brought the world to our door 12e7 we invite the members of the board to come and experience this phenomena the responsibility i've had i have it is a responsibility and honor to protect this experience and the light and view for ourselves and our neighbors we want the dpw to do the same we hope you'll use your collective wisdom and deny this appeal thank you. >> do we stay here for questions. >> if there are any.
3:32 pm
>> okay. >> i guess we're done thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> hello paul outdoor council for verizon wireless and the permit holder first of all thank the departments planning and department of public works foreseeable and year of effort in helping verizon wireless putting together this small network for north beach and russian hill we've worked tireless for those this the greatest way to provide ever increasing need for capacity and the demands for wireless from cell phones watches ipads and
3:33 pm
so on and so forth doubling every year and verizon is scrambling to find those facilities this is the least impact we're able to use an existing structure essentially pitting telephone equipment on the telephone pole the department has addressed the appeal points and bring your attention with respect to the historic review the facility is a block away from the crooked street it makes it clear the location explicit qualify that requires additional review of it did the standard would be whether this is significantly detracts from the authentic nature of the structure we your this smaller than a telephone
3:34 pm
pole the box are 10 by 17 inches high smaller than two pieces of paper put together can't possibly detract of this is a historic structure there is concern about the impairing views and the standard it must significantly impair the building landmark, park or other structure that is the point of the scenic view the smaller facility does not impair the scenic view we feel the points are not well-taken in fact the bli barks own photographs of the pole and the boxes it is clear from their photographs from the residents there's minimal impact from the resources again, we appreciate all the
3:35 pm
time and effort that was put into this by all the departments and encourage you to approve their decisions this is through one protest hearing from the public works and now for the second public hearing i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> counselor. >> yes. >> thank you. >> is verizon have a program for roof mounted equipment. >> pardon me. >> for equipment mounted on the roof of a building. >> absolutely better or worse i've been involved in the locations for wireless services for over thirty years we began with antennas on seiu introduce tower those antennas have been taken down in order to have a spectrum the miracle the technology can
3:36 pm
be used the same frequency from one location to another the location is from macro cells that provides coverage and now a limited coverage that will provide increased capacity in a localized level those families with 61 watts you saw from the r f report below one percent of the federal safety standards there are facilities on rooftops and in the shape of vent pipes verizon wireless has a letter of determination from the planning department for a small facility that goes on a building facades in network involves 40 facilities in this area and t is designed to work together with
3:37 pm
the least number of bowls to provide the service necessary with antennas that are low heights so this network is designed to provide this need the rooftops are used for other aspects of the network they're generally higher and provided another aspect. >> but not this type of equipment you said. >> that's correct. >> other questions. >> i have a question counselor in our brief in item c image you have a picture of the equipment proposed to be installed. >> yes. i believe so. >> in the past we've heard regarding lots of mobile stuff is this an accurate drawing to scale as shown in our brief. >> i believe you're talking about the plans. >> no there's a picture. >> as far as simulation. >> that's correct.
3:38 pm
>> what's the dimensions of that proceeding antenna. >> those are 24 inches by 15 inches in dynamic a 2 foot antenna with 14.6 inches in dynamic slirld it is a sophisticated antenna that's the size and that to the best of my knowledge those are being installed in '80 poles in the east bay and 80 poles have been installed in palo alto. >> just to follow up on commissioner fung's the rooftop is not applicable. >> not for this network. >> okay. that's fine thank you. >> commissioner swig no any on the questions. >> is this - >> what's going through my mind
3:39 pm
is the this the late intrusive equipment to place. >> for this network again, yes are there smaller facilities yes, they serve different needs and styles of network we say to work with what we have are brown light poles another application for light standards they're available in the underground it's before referenced and if underground were to our wore to remove those facilities and the light poles will go up in this area and be potential used. >> my follow-up question that was when i bought it was obsolete the momentum i walked out of the store w wrufd verizon the technology is obsolete after
3:40 pm
it is installed what is to make sure that the thinking truthful use of equipment that will be cycled to get to the next technology that might be less i think truthful is there a responsibility associated with your permit that when new technology is available that will be less intrusive open a roof do you have a requirement or an requirement to replace that equipment and make it less intrusive. >> the market is driven all the wireless carriers in two was one to provide the latest and greatest technology the fcc sells the carriers to verizon wireless is permitting u operating on four bands that is difficult we need different antennas and radios at the same time the equipment is smaller
3:41 pm
and become more dense whoo what i'm trying to say we tried try to use the smaller cells so generally those sites go through a process of modification to keep up with the technologies and the trend has been for the technology to get smaller and because we will likely need to upgrade those network and go back for permits more people in the department will work with the wireless community to have the less impactful facilities i have to tell you there was a year of working together with omar to get smaller meters i applaud him and putting in smaller breathes and i expect the same when we modify those for new technologies that
3:42 pm
happens which happens often so the short answer are we required to do that no there's no condition that says if technology comes up there is a local jurisdiction really can't dictate technology and the wireless issue has to decide what best interests in our service to provide so when. >> you're basically saying when this technology becomes obsolete you'll be forced to put in a better technology that is based on smaller and less obtaining truthful. >> because of the policymakers and yourselves and you're able staff that steers us towards the solution whether it is rooftop chimneys or shoid we're all of
3:43 pm
those are components of the networks. >> thank you does that answer your question. >> thank you. we'll be back for rebuttal. >> we can hear from the department mr. chin. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioner vice president honda and commissioners i'm jean e gene chang from public works first, i'm going to give a brief description the wireless processed process and then go into each appeal that arises tonight as you may know public works in conjunction with the department of public health received the applications under the public works codes article 25 and the dpw for the article 25 it
3:44 pm
consists of two components the first whether him exposure is within the fcc guidelines and the decimals measures for 3 feats from decimal all of the evidence it determines whether the historic district the historic landmark and significant buildings and little sites under the general plan to verify there was a determination from planning and the did you want in regards to notification article 25 requires public works to issue a tentative approval letter for the application after an affirm active if any protests are received the public works will go hold a public hearing
3:45 pm
and issue a recommendation to the director which he will then adopt or deny and all of the cases tonight those events occurred and ultimately adopt the recommendation so getting into 2215 las vegas worst the appellant identified the multiple appeals as explained in the appeal public works building the planning department properly issued a take into account adjacent buildings and viewed the streets public works determined that verizon had fulfilled the notice of requirements of article 25 based on the affidavit after the notification with the notice of the description of the project photo simulation and plans were included that explains the type
3:46 pm
of equipment exposed and as confirmed in mr. sanchez letter they've take into account the concerns regarding light and the view so with that said the department believes that this permit was compiles with art 25 and it was properly issued so we ask the board to uphold our determination. >> here to answer any questions if you don't have any questions planning omar is here to speak. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> the recent supervisorial changes requiring another layer of either neighborhood notification and or the decision
3:47 pm
of alternate sites only apply to the ones on the situation. >> i - i think you're talking about the sidewalks in the s m f. >> that protective change only applies to those. >> correct. >> thank you omar wireless planner for the planning department i look at the sites on roofs as well as attached to telephone poles in the public right-of-way the recessional improvement we don't believe those our preference is for carriers to work with us to provide scale appropriate micro and macro and if there is a gap
3:48 pm
looking at the least intrusive sites one of the challenges was when it was discovered we had a concern of the accumulative sites from the streets with a certain prospective and the submittals we saw not for this site but others included the expensive pole height increases and the project application was consistent they needed to pole 15 to 20 feet higher than the existing pole it was out of character there were consistencies with the meter twice as wide as the pole it becomes a dmoop for graffiti we are that planning to recommend deny for 14 of the sites because of the concerns and we move forward they came back with a far less intrusive
3:49 pm
with more modest height pole increases and they try to look at different locations for the antenna basically w the wood poles will replace the antenna with the poem on an extension pole up or place the antenna at the top of the pole challenge with the top of pole it might look out of character with the tall extension with the lower residential area and the sidearm doesn't require the length but may introduce it's into someone's view we recognize those are the more smaller one than another carriers in our capacity we review the
3:50 pm
environmental issues for instance the architecture concerns we look at the views and frankly for ever sites of 43 sites we treated every street as a street view and tried to determine if it will significantly detract from the elements what made that street an excellent street listed in the general plan for a good street verify if applicable and lastly for the appellants proposed have a historic landmark we reviewed every single site with the preservation staff with the planning department and looked at it was it 83 track from that building a significant landmark beyond that there was a question from commissioner vice president honda about an accuracy for simulations we've seen it with
3:51 pm
equipment and antennas the challenge is the procedure with bundles of cable channel 78 fully places with the pole that is what we're working to address more expansive over time to make it less intrusive as possible thank you. >> a couple of points one this particular permit they say something about either adding to the pole or replacing the pole i wasn't sure, which saw in this instance not a pole replacement. >> a piece of a pole to this one. >> their attaching braeblths to the equipment on the pole and attaching an extension arm off the pole midway to add the antenna. >> i to thought they said something about a pole.
3:52 pm
>> let me verify the appellant. >> okay. >> if you're going to address the commission you need to come to the microphone and this is a might have increase. >> there is an additional to the pole itself. >> correct. >> does that impact our thinking. >> not when we look at the totality of the pole the pole is a taller pole holds the electrical lines we didn't feel the change was a significant concern 83 track from the dwellings around it. >> i have two other points one can i respond then to the departments take on excellent view streets versus i know it came up in the case several years ago we dealt with one it was a good view as i remember
3:53 pm
how did the department in their revenue of this instance looked at leavenworth. >> we looked at this site being one you have a element that at the end to make those streets higher rating streets the entrance to the golden gate and knob hill if you looked up the hill we tread it as a green great strait and apply that same soft standard. >> is there a in the reluctance and regulations for the equipment constellation. >> uh-huh. >> is there anything related to is an alternative site done by any of the. >> the public works code didn't require an alternative site
3:54 pm
analyze analysis but when a site comes on a rooftop both sites do require an alternative sites which this instance there were few instances oh, there's a vacant lot around the corner can you check and see if that site a lessening terrify nearly every residents has bay windows and no, if you will, easy poles at least give that one a try. >> welcome to san francisco. >> exactly and i have a question as well out of the 43 locations does our department also in front of the properties how many were class a historic or so the planning department has a code abbey
3:55 pm
building out of the 43 locations how many were a. >> i don't have a number i'd guess about 20 percent in this case were any a and i believe the house was an a. >> the other question. >> may or may not have an answer is there any plans in the future near or for for a to go underground and what happens to this facility. >> many of the mercedes benz members of the public u members of the public would love to see this underground inch discussed this no firm plans the city looked at the costs and the high number was $5 million and didn't identify a funding source one of the champs everyone will pay an underground fee we've got years in advance of credits against that we don't have funds in
3:56 pm
reserve to tap into underground in terms of under grounding u underground the developers are building apartment for a muni upgrade in this area it is static. >> i have poles in front of my house too thank you. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> i believe in the approving or disapproving they into custody block the views under public works code the inspection if there is a violation dpw will show the deficitcy what's the inspection they meet the conditions of approval. >> if we get complaints it will result in not complying with the condition we went out for a case that is before you today and tried to address that concern we
3:57 pm
recognize those are - there's a spec review between a shed versus impairing that view 4 feet away from the bay window we said we didn't think it will impair the light or bring shadows into the dwelling a sense of light and air. >> and to the extents r stent to before do i have you been asked to do inspections and required to do corrections to any of those installations. >> we have a site before you today. >> not today. >> i'm sorry not myself i've only been working on the wood poles for two years and it tends to be in the sunset and richard a driveway between the home and
3:58 pm
dwelling? one of the most challenging districts in san francisco. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll take public comment before we do can i see a show of hands how many people plan on speaking it would be helpful if you can line up on the side wall and if you haven't filled out a speaker card do so briefing and hand to mr. pacheco when you come up to speak that will be helpful. >> through it didn't and whoever wants to start you can come up to the podium and begin. >> two minutes. >> okay. because of the size of the crowd and the length of the calendar the president as indicated two minutes per is people and i'm bob plant i oppose the appeal i think the
3:59 pm
idea of expanding the network may seem abstract but provides greater safety there are gaps where there is spottyness and having this will make that safer for injury a kid gets hit in the street or tourists gets lost if 43 they can't find out where someone is there's a safety benefit it i consider it worth considering if at the same time when you hear that there's obstructions and views go back and ask you to remember the photos you were shown people want to take a picture of the golden gate or alcatraz it is up at a pole looking at the sky but that's an unrealistic
4:00 pm
approach you're not going to photograph the sky and if you're view the golden gate or alcatraz it obscured walk around the pole this is a static position nothing can be changed or adams this flies in the face we need reliable phone coverage throughout the city i want those remarks to be considered for the 7, 8 and 9 they're all parts of city where their can be spotty coverage thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> hi, i'm sarah i live on russian hill close to the brand new parking garages and as a